Have you experimented with single page web application, i.e. where the browser only 'GETs' one page form the server, the rest being handled by client side javascript code (one good example of such an 'application page' is Gmail)?
What are some pro's and con's of going with this approach for simpler applications (such as blogs and CMSs)?
How do you go about designing such an application?
Edit: As mentioned in the response a difficuly is to handle the back button, the refresh button, bookmarking/copying url. The latter can be solved using location.hash, any clue about the remaining two issues?
I call these single page apps "long lived" apps.
For "simpler applications" as you put it it's terrible. Things that work OOTB for browsers all of a sudden need special care and attention:
the back button
the refresh button
bookmarking/copying url
Note I'm not saying you can't do these things with single-page apps, I'm saying you need to make the effort to build them into the app code. If you simply had different resources at different urls, these work with no additional developer effort.
Now, for complex apps like gmail, google maps, the benefits there are:
user-perceived responsiveness of the application can increase
the usability of the application may go up (eg scrollbars don't jump to the top on the new page when clicking on what the user thought was a small action)
no white screen flicker during the HTTP request->response
One concern with long-lived apps is memory leaks. Traditional sites that requests a new page for each user action have the added benefit that the browser discards the DOM and any unused objects to the degree that memory can be reclaimed. Newer browsers have different mechanisms for this, but lets take IE as an example. IE will require special care to clean up memory periodically during the lifetime of the long-lived app. This is made somewhat easier by libraries these days, but by no means is a triviality.
As with a lot of things, a hybrid approach is great. It allows you to leverage JavaScript for lazy-loading specific content while separating parts of the app by page/url.
One pro is that you get the full presentation power of JavaScript as opposed to non-JavaScript web sites where the browser may flicker between pages and similar minor nuisances. You may notice lower bandwidth use as well as a result of only handling with the immediately important parts that need to be refreshed instead of getting a full web page back from the server.
The major con behind this is the accessibility concern. Users without JavaScript (or those who choose to disable it) can't use your web site unless you do some serious server-side coding to determine what to respond with depending on whether the request was made using AJAX or not. Depending on what (server-side) web framework you use, this can be either easy or extremely tedious.
It is not considered a good idea in general to have a web site which relies completely on the user having JavaScript.
One major con, and a major complaint of websites that have taken AJAX perhaps a bit too far, is that you lose the ability to bookmark pages that are "deep" into the content of the site. When a user bookmarks the page they will always get the "front" page of the site, regardless of what content they were looking at when they made the bookmark.
Maybe you should check SproutCore (Apple Used it for MobileMe) or Cappuccino, these are Javascript frameworks to make exactly that, designing desktop-like interfaces that only fetch responses from the server via JSON or XML.
Using either for a blog won't be a good idea, but a well designed desktop-like blog admin area may be a joy to use.
The main reason to avoid it is that taken alone it's extremely search-unfriendly. That's fine for webapps like GMail that don't need to be publically searchable, but for your blogs and CMS-driven sites it would be a disaster.
You could of course create the simple HTML version and then progressive-enhance it, but making it work nicely in both versions at once could be a bunch of work.
I was creating exactly these kind of pages as webapps for the iPhone. My method was to really put everything in one huge index.html file and to hide or show certain content. This showing and hiding i.e. the navigation of the page, I control in a special javascript file where the necessary functions for handling the display of the parts in the page are.
Pro: Everything is loaded in the beginning and you don't need to request anything from the server anymore, e.g. "switching" content and performing actions is very fast.
Con: First, everything has to load... that can take its time, if you have a lot of content that has to be shown immediately.
Another issue is that in case when the connection goes down, the user will not really notice until he actually needs the server side. You can notice that in Gmail as well. (It sometimes can be a positive thing though).
Hope it helps! greets
Usually, you will take a framework like GWT, Echo2 or similar.
The advantage of this approach is that the application feels much more like a desktop app. When the server is fast enough, users won't notice the many little data packets that go back and forth. Also, loading a page from scratch is an expensive operation. If you just modify parts of it, the browser can keep a lot of the existing model in memory and just change the parts that changed.
Another advantage of these frameworks is that you can develop your application in pure Java. This means you can debug it in your IDE just like any other Java app, you can write unit tests and run them automatically, etc.
I'll add that on slower machines, a con is that a large amount of JavaScript will bring the browser to a screeching halt. Since all the rendering is done client-side, if the user doesn't have a higher-end computer, it will ruin the experience. My work computer is a P4 3.0GHZ with 2 GB of ram and JavaScript heavy sites cause it to chug along slower than molasses, which really kills the user experience for me.
Related
I'm planning on making my web app quite AJAX heavy.
Before I do, I'm wondering what people think of such sites. Are there any significant reasons not to do this?
BTW, no need to mention SEO reasons. Also, I think the benefits make up for the fact that people without javascript will have a limited experience (though I'm open to being convinced otherwise).
It depends on how you plan to use it, IMO.
1) If the site will absolutely fail without it, you are excluding users with scripting disabled. I think it is fair in many scenarios to limit but not remove functionality for no-script users (for example, Google doesn't autocomplete searches if you have scripting disabled; it can't...but the basic search still works).
2) The right techniques need to be used in the right place. For example, an ASP.Net UpdatePanel will perform horribly if you dump thousands of elements into it.
3) I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of content that is loaded in small blocks on the page that does not require a full refresh NOR does it require the whole page to be executed again. This lends itself to a SOA nicely, but is even more subject to the limits of #1.
4) EDIT: Don't create UI elements that (due to AJAX) behave unexpectedly. For example, I once built a dropdown list that only populated when it was toggled. Because of latency and DOM creation time, it wasn't responsive. Furthermore, the size would often change based on what elements were dynamically added. You could propose ways around these problems, but that was still an incorrect use of the technology.
AJAX is a tool for a job. If your application is best served by the tool, use it.
Edit -- just make sure the tradeoffs are well understood. Also, nothing in using AJAX prevents you from having a non-ajax backup ready for if you need it...
Obviously, there are many popular sites that rely on AJAX, so it certainly need not be avoided if used well. However, there are things to consider:
Will users need to be able to deep-link (i.e. save bookmarks to "pages" that have been created dynamically)? Will they need to use the back button to navigate? (Both of these things can be done using AJAX but they need to be explicitly considered, as naive implementations of AJAX can make them work poorly or not at all.)
Will the use of AJAX have a negative impact for disabled users (e.g. those using a screen reader)?
It depends on how you use AJAX. Pages where you have to wait while the page is rendered AND THEN wait another 10secs while the scripts execute and load the actual content, make people angry. Pages, which load fast and do a good job with AJAX, are fine of course.
Search engine optimization is one thing, but ability to find things in your site is another. You will have to think of a way for Google to index your content. Hence, you will still have to have a "plain text" version, where links behave as links.
Deep linking can be an issue with Ajax heavy sites. There are ways around it (i.e. using the url-hash technique) but those are not always fail safe.
Users who are on the other side of the planet, with a 3×108 m/s speed limit enforced by physics, will find your site sluggish and unresponsive if you have a lot of UI interaction going on with AJAX.
A typical packet turnaround time (round trip) from New Zealand to California is roughly 200 ms, and a user interface should respond within 100 ms to not feel sluggish.
How important is it to gracefully degrade or inversely Progressively Enhance the UI experiance? I mean am I going to lose a LOT of business if I don't? Do you practice this concept? Are there any web 1.0 users still left out there?
Please could you also include if you practice this personally and how much time you've spent relative to the entire project. I realize every project is different, I want to get a sense of how much time as a general rule I should be allocating toward this goal.
EDIT
Firstly, i'm looking for guidance around how much time I should be devoting to making my applications run without javascript.
Secondly, the BS term "web 1.0" (...lol... I don't really like it either) works because we all understand that as the iteration before ajax and all its goodness.
Thirdly, the kind of applications I'm describing are the ones we are all building, not Facebook, not Twitter (unless you're from Facebook or Twitter) but service or utitlity programs like a web calendar, or an online todo list or [INSERT YOUR APP HERE].
Progressive enhancement is more a mindset than a particular task that you need to allocate time to. If you're doing it right (and if it's important to you), you should be enhancing the user experience with JavaScript, but not relying on it.
For example, a link will point to a new page, but with JavaScript you'll disable the link and load new content into the current page with Ajax. Start off without JavaScript and progressive enhancement will follow naturally.
Progressive enhancement is not only smart but it is faster and easier to develop.
And at each stage, you almost always have a working fall-back.
Here's what it looks like in a nutshell:
Boss/client approves mock ups.
We code to valid HTML output. At this point, the boss/client can start using the site. Baring any boss/client changes, the HTML is mostly done. The site is usable at this point.
We start tweaking the CSS to make it match the boss/client's graphic expectations. Changes to the HTML are minor, if any.
In parallel, JavaScript is added to do non-critical, but nice, things. (Sort tables, Fancy CSS helping, replace some links with AJAX calls, warn the user -- client-side -- of input problems.)
If any one of these things breaks, the site still works.
Also, little, or usually no, html changes are needed.
First of all, lets not start using bullshit terms like "web 1.0" and "web 2.0" etc, the fact is the web is forever progressing and new websites are starting to use JavaScript to enhance the user experience.
I don't know anyone that doesn't allow their site to gracefully degrade when JavaScript isn't available, this is for the same reason we use semantic markup so screen readers can correctly interpret our websites for users with visual impairment, and whilst the vast majority of your visitors / users won't fall into these categories it's still important to think about the minority.
Will you lose a LOT of business, well that depends on how successful you are now and how badly your site degrades, chances are you probably won't lose any business... but that should not be the measure yo use to decide whether to gracefully degrade a website.
So unless you can come up with a pretty good reason, you should probably use JavaScript for the purposes of progressive enhancement, don't depend too much on it.
:-)
This greatly depends on the nature of your aplication and its data. If it's something that you know will be mostly used via computers, than degrading to non-script version UI wouldn't make any obvious benefit (even loss of money because it will take considerable time to develop). You can always tell people to enable javascript in their browsers (similar to what's done here on Stackoverflow - try disabling script and reload the page). Your app/site should display at least something when there's no Javascript posibility.
But if your application has simple data to display and users should access it frequently wherever they are, than degrading to lesser browsers (without script engines like Opera Mini) is a must. Creating a separate UI will less functionality, but keeping everything in that users need to access is probably your best option. UIs like separate iPhone applications for example...
JavaScript is disabled by a small proportion of web users, but when you start to talk big volumes this can make a difference. For example for 1 million visitors, you can expect more than 10,000 not to be able to user your site.
You should decide how much lost business is worth the additional cost of having a non-JavaScript version of your site.
You can have an approach where the entire site may not work without JavaScript but that some of the core features are there.
looking for some general advice and/or thoughts...
i'm creating what i think to be more of a web application then web page, because i intend it to be like a gmail app where you would leave the page open all day long while getting updates "pushed" to the page (for the interested i'm using the comet programming technique). i've never created a web page before that was so rich in ajax and javascript (i am now a huge fan of jquery). because of this, time and time again when i'm implementing a new feature that requires a dynamic change in the UI that the server needs to know about, i am faced with the same question:
1) should i do all the processing on the client in javascript and post back as little as possible via ajax
or
2) should i post a request to the server via ajax, have the server do all the processing and then send back the new html. then on the ajax response i do a simple assignment with the new HTML
i have been inclined to always follow #1. this web app i imagine may get pretty chatty with all the ajax requests. my thought is minimize as much as possible the size of the requests and responses, and rely on the continuously improving javascript engines to do as much of the processing and UI updates as possible. i've discovered with jquery i can do so much on the client side that i wouldn't have been able to do very easily before. my javascript code is actually much bigger and more complex than my serverside code. there are also simple calulcations i need to perform and i've pushed that on the client side, too.
i guess the main question i have is, should we ALWAYS strive for client side processing over server side processing whenever possible? i 've always felt the less the server has to handle the better for scalability/performance. let the power of the client's processor do all the hard work (if possible).
thoughts?
There are several considerations when deciding if new HTML fragments created by an ajax request should be constructed on the server or client side. Some things to consider:
Performance. The work your server has to do is what you should be concerned with. By doing more of the processing on the client side, you reduce the amount of work the server does, and speed things up. If the server can send a small bit of JSON instead of giant HTML fragment, for example, it'd be much more efficient to let the client do it. In situations where it's a small amount of data being sent either way, the difference is probably negligible.
Readability. The disadvantage to generating markup in your JavaScript is that it's much harder to read and maintain the code. Embedding HTML in quoted strings is nasty to look at in a text editor with syntax coloring set to JavaScript and makes for more difficult editing.
Separation of data, presentation, and behavior. Along the lines of readability, having HTML fragments in your JavaScript doesn't make much sense for code organization. HTML templates should handle the markup and JavaScript should be left alone to handle the behavior of your application. The contents of an HTML fragment being inserted into a page is not relevant to your JavaScript code, just the fact that it's being inserted, where, and when.
I tend to lean more toward returning HTML fragments from the server when dealing with ajax responses, for the readability and code organization reasons I mention above. Of course, it all depends on how your application works, how processing intensive the ajax responses are, and how much traffic the app is getting. If the server is having to do significant work in generating these responses and is causing a bottleneck, then it may be more important to push the work to the client and forego other considerations.
I'm currently working on a pretty computationally-heavy application right now and I'm rendering almost all of it on the client-side. I don't know exactly what your application is going to be doing (more details would be great), but I'd say your application could probably do the same. Just make sure all of your security- and database-related code lies on the server-side, because not doing so will open security holes in your application. Here are some general guidelines that I follow:
Don't ever rely on the user having a super-fast browser or computer. Some people are using Internet Explore 7 on old machines, and if it's too slow for them, you're going to lose a lot of potential customers. Test on as many different browsers and machines as possible.
Any time you have some code that could potentially slow down or freeze the browser momentarily, show a feedback mechanism (in most cases a simple "Loading" message will do) to tell the user that something is indeed going on, and the browser didn't just randomly freeze.
Try to load as much as you can during initialization and cache everything. In my application, I'm doing something similar to Gmail: show a loading bar, load up everything that the application will ever need, and then give the user a smooth experience from there on out. Yes, they're going to have to potentially wait a couple seconds for it to load, but after that there should be no problems.
Minimize DOM manipulation. Raw number-crunching JavaScript performance might be "fast enough", but access to the DOM is still slow. Avoid creating and destroying elements; instead simply hide them if you don't need them at the moment.
I recently ran into the same problem and decided to go with browser side processing, everything worked great in FF and IE8 and IE8 in 7 mode, but then... our client, using Internet Explorer 7 ran into problems, the application would freeze up and a script timeout box would appear, I had put too much work into the solution to throw it away so I ended up spending an hour or so optimizing the script and adding setTimeout wherever possible.
My suggestions?
If possible, keep non-critical calculations client side.
To keep data transfers low, use JSON and let the client side sort out the HTML.
Test your script using the lowest common denominator.
If needed use the profiling feature in FireBug. Corollary: use the uncompressed (development) version of jQuery.
I agree with you. Push as much as possible to users, but not too much. If your app slows or even worse crashes their browser you loose.
My advice is to actually test how you application acts when turned on for all day. Check that there are no memory leaks. Check that there isn't a ajax request created every half of second after working with application for a while (timers in JS can be a pain sometime).
Apart from that never perform user input validation with javascript. Always duplicate it on server.
Edit
Use jquery live binding. It will save you a lot of time when rebinding generated content and will make your architecture more clear. Sadly when I was developing with jQuery it wasn't available yet; we used other tools with same effect.
In past I also had a problem when one page part generation using ajax depends on other part generation. Generating first part first and second part second will make your page slower as expected. Plan this in front. Develop a pages so that they already have all content when opened.
Also (regarding simple pages too), keep number of referenced files on one server low. Join javascript and css libraries into one file on server side. Keep images on separate host, better separate hosts (creating just a third level domain will do too). Though this is worth it only on production; it will make development process more difficult.
Of course it depends on the data, but a majority of the time if you can push it client side, do. Make the client do more of the processing and use less bandwidth. (Again this depends on the data, you can get into cases that you have to send more data across to do it client side).
Some stuff like security checks should always be done on the server. If you have a computation that takes a lot of data and produces less data, also put it on the server.
Incidentally, did you know you could run Javascript on the server side, rendering templates and hitting databases? Check out the CommonJS ecosystem.
There could also be cross-browser support issues. If you're using a cross-browser, client-side library (eg JQuery) and it can handle all the processing you need then you can let the library take care of it. Generating cross-browser HTML server-side can be harder (tends to be more manual), depending on the complexity of the markup.
this is possible, but with the heavy intial page load && heavy use of caching. take gmail as an example
On initial page load, it downloads most of the js files it needed to run. And most of all cached.
dont over use of images and graphics.
Load all the data need to show in intial load and along with the subsequent predictable user data. in gmail & latest yahoo mail the inbox is not only populated with the single mail conversation body, It loads first few full email messages in advance at the time of pageload. secret of high resposiveness comes with the cost (gmail asks to load the light version if the bandwidth is low.i bet most of us have experienced ).
follow KISS principle. means keep ur desgin simple.
And never try to render the whole page using javascript in any case, you cannot predict all your endusers using the high config systems or high bandwidth systems.
Its smart to split the workload between your server and client.
If you think in the future you might want to create an API for your application (communicating with iPhone or android apps, letting other sites integrate with yours,) your would have to duplicate a bunch of code for all those devices if you go with a bare-bones server implementation of your application.
I'm starting to give a little more attention to making my javascript and ajax degrade gracefully. Which is more recommended:
working on incorporating the graceful degradation into your existing code (can be tricky)
or
developing a different sets of pages for the non-js users.
I'm leaning towards the different sets of pages, because I feel it's easier and I get to deliver the best possible results for each user type (js-enabled or js-disabled). Do you agree with me, and if not, why do you disagree?
I'm also worrying about hacking attempts. For example hacker gets to the js-enabled version, then disables his js. Any thoughts on this point? I don't know much about hacking, but can this be a security concern if I go with the separate versions?
Thanks in advance
Though it doesn't work well for existing sites, often it's more useful to use the Progressive Enhancement paradigm: build the site so it works with no special add-ons, then start layering your awesomeness on top of that.
This way you can be sure it works from the ground up and everyone (including those who use screen readers, those who turn off images or stylesheets, and those who don't use javascript) can all access your site.
For an existing site, however, it will depend on what functionality the ajax is delivering. In general you should strive to mirror all the ajax functionality with js disabled. If you have security holes in your js version, than you probably will in your non-js version too. AJAX can't get to anything that can't be accessed via ordinary URL.
Developing two separate sets of pages, one for JS enabled and one for non-JS, is obviously a lot of work, not only initially, but also as your application keeps evolving. If that doesn't bother you too much, I think that's the way to go. I think you are right about same-page graceful degradation being very tricky sometimes. Sometimes this is just because of the layout: With JS enabled, you can simply hide and show elements, where as without JS: where to put everything? Separate sets of pages can help keep page structure cleaner.
About hacking attempts: You can never, never, never rely on client-side JavaScript validation. Everything has to be checked (or re-checked) server-side, and your server-side code may make no assumptions whatsoever on the user input. Therefore, I think the scenario of someone de-activating JS while using the application is irrelevant. Try to keep the expected user input uniform for the non-JS and the JS versions, validate it properly, and you're good.
You'll probably want to check out jQuery Ajaxy. It lets you gracefully upgrade your website into a full featured ajax one without any server side modifications, so everything still works for javascript disabled users and search engines. It also supports hashes so your back and forward buttons still work.
It's been implemented on these two sites (which I know of) http://wbhomes.com.au and http://www.balupton.com
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm building a web application with the Zend Framework. I have wanted to include some AJAX type forms and modal boxes, but I also want my application to be as accessible as possible. I want my application to be enhanced by AJAX, but also fully functional without AJAX.
So as a general guideline...when should I not use AJAX? I mean, should I bother making my application usable without AJAX? Or does everyone have AJAX enabled browsers these days?
If you mean "accessible" in the ADA sense, AJAX is usually a no-no - your site should provide all its content and core functionality using only standard (X)HTML and CSS. Any javascript used should merely extend the core functionality, and your site should be coded to work elegantly in the absence of a javascript-enabled browser.
Examples: if you want a user to click on a thumbnail and get a full-size version of the image as a result, you can make the thumbnail a link. Then, the onclick event will fire a JQuery method that cancels the navigation behavior of the link and pops up a JQuery floating div to show the image on the current page. If the user's browser doesn't support JavaScript, the onclick event will never fire, and the user will be presented the image in a new page. The core functionality is the same with or without scripting.
EDIT: Skeleton example, sans JQuery-specific code.
<html>
<body>
Some URL
</body>
</html>
To cancel the navigation operation, simply make sure that the method invoked by the onclick event returns false at the end.
A neat example of the JQuery image popup I described can be found here.
Use ajax if it adds value for the user.
If the ajax version adds a lot more value than the non-ajax version then it might justify the expense to develop a solution that caters for both clients. Generally i wouldn't recommend doing the extra work (remember.. more code results in more maintenance).
I think one point is missing here: Use Ajax only for content any search engine does not need to know.
98% of users will have AJAX enabled browsers.
A significant percentage of those people won't have it turned on when they first visit your site though (or at all, ever perhaps).
I've seen websites that look like a blank page without javascript on. Don't be one of them. Javascript to fix layout issues is a horrible idea in my opinion. Make sure it loads and looks ok without Javascript. If people can atleast see what they are missing out on, they are likely to switch it on, but if your website looks like it's just broken, then...
I often have noscript block Flash and JavaScript until I make the decision that your site is worthy.
So be sure to tell me what I'm missing if I have JavaScript turned off.
It depends on the complexity of your web application.
If you can, having it functional with javascript disabled is great, because it makes your application usable not only by users on js-disabled browsers but also by robots. The day you decide to write an application to automatically fill your forms, for example, you don't have to write an API from the ground up.
In any case, do not user AJAX for EVERYTHING! I have just inherited a project that basically consists of a single page that is populated by a ton of AJAX calls and I can tell that you just thinking about it gives me physical pain. I guess the original developer didn't like the concept of using the back/forward button in the browser as a mean of navigation.
Unless you are targeting mobile devices or other non-standard web users, you can be fairly sure that the vast majority has Javascript enabled, because most major sites (including SO) rely heavily on it.
I want my application to be as accessible as possible.
You can do things like rendering your modals and forms as a page that can operate standalone.
The AJAX version pulls the template into a modal/container, the standalone version checks if it's an AJAX request and renders the page including the header/footer (this can occur from the same URL if planned well)
The AJAX version intercepts the submit and does AJAX submission then provides an inline thank you, the non-AJAX opens a thank you page. Once again you can likely use the same pages for each of these functions if thought out correctly.
Reusing templates and URL's helps avoid additional maintenance for the AJAX/non-AJAX versions.
I want my application to be enhanced by AJAX, but also fully
functional without AJAX.
Thinking through the structure of your URLs and templates can go a long way towards this, if you make most of your AJAX requests pull in completely rendered templates (as opposed to just data) then you can usually use the same URL to serve both versions. You just serve only the guts of the modal/form to the AJAX request and the entire page to a regular request.
When should I not use AJAX?
You should not use AJAX if doing so will cause a poor experience for a significant portion of your user base (there are of course techniques that can be used to mitigate this)
You should not use AJAX if the development time associated with implementing it will be too significant to justify the improvements in user experience
You should not use AJAX for content which has significant SEO value without implementing an appropriate fallback that allows it to be indexed (Crawlers are improving constantly but it's still a good idea)
I mean, should I bother making my application usable without AJAX? Or
does everyone have AJAX enabled browsers these days?
I'd say a lot of the time it's unnecessary as the vast majority of users will have AJAX enabled browsers, but there are scenarios where it's critical such as SEO optimization or when a large portion of your user base is likely to use browsers that are less likely to support Javascript as well or where they're likely to have Javascript/AJAX disabled.
A few examples of these scenarios:
A website for a company or government that uses an outdated browser as standard
A website where a large portion of the users may be disabled in a manner that may negatively impact their experience such as a website for vision or motor-skill impaired people may be negatively impacted by updating content via AJAX especially if it occurs rapidly.
A site accessed regularly via a less common device or browser that will cause a negative impact to a large portion of users
So what should I do?
Think about who is going to be using the site, how they're going to access it, and what they're going to access it with. Also try to think about not just the present but also the future.
Design the site in a manner that will cater to the majority of these users.
Think who will gain and who will loose based on my decision to use AJAX and if in doubt have a look at your analytics data to help weigh up the decision and if you lack the data it may be worth updating your tracking and obtaining a sample to aid the decision
Think does my decision to use AJAX cause any contradictions with core requirements for this project
Use AJAX to enhance content where possible as opposed to making it mandatory ie the content should work with or without JS/AJAX
Consider the additional development time involved with the use of AJAX (if any)
My experience is, we should use ajax after it works without it. For a couple of reasons.
First, if something breaks in the ajax, and you don't have it working without it, the site simply doesn't work. For example, a product list with pagination. It should work with the links alone, then use ajax when possible.
Second, for site indexing and accessibility. If it works without ajax, it's better.
And it's easier to break something (even if only for a few moments). A bad piece of code, an uncaught exception, an external library not loaded, a blocking browser extension,...
After everything works without ajax, its quite easier to add ajax. Just have the ajax catch the action, add ajax=1 and when returning the result, return only what you need if ajax=1, otherwise return everything.
In the product list example, I would only return the products and pagination html, and add to the correct div. If ajax stops working, the whole page is loaded and the customer sees the second page as it loads.
Ajax adds a lot of value to UX. If done right, the user gets a great feel when using the site, and better data usage because it doesn't load the whole page everytime.
But the question being "when not to use ajax", I would say, you should always count on it to improve UX but not rely on it for the site to work (as other users also mentioned). And nowadays we need both, great code and great user experience.
My practice is to use two main pages, let's say index.py and ajax.py. First one is responsible for generating full website, and is default target of forms. Other one generates only output specific for adequate ajax query. Logic behind both of them is the same, only the method of generating output is a bit different.
In jquery I simply change action parameter when sending a request. It works both with and without ajax, although long time have I not seen someone with disabled js and ajax.
I like the thought of coding your application without JavaScript / Ajax and then adding it in later to enhance the UI without depriving users of functionality just because they don't have JavaScript enabled. I read about this in Pro ASP.NET MVC but I think I've seen it elsewhere in reading about unobtrusive JavaScript.
You should not make your service bloated with web 2.0 effects like accordion, modal/etc forms, image zoomers etc.
Use modern tech smarter (AJAX is one of them) and your users will be happy. Do not fear AJAX -- this is very good thing to make user expirience smooth. But don't do things because you like it - do them because your user need it ;)
When you want to make a website that looks like a website, not a fugly imitation of a desktop app?
You should not use AJAX or JavaScript in cases where:
your system needs to be accessible
your system needs to be search friendly
However, by using a modern JS framework with some solid "unobtrusive" practices, you can progressively enhance pages so that they remain accessible and search-friendly while offering a slick UI to users.
This totally depends on the type of application or feature you're developing. If it is crucial that the application is accessible despite the absence of Javascript, then it would help to have fallback methods (i.e. alternative forms) to allow your user to use said functionality/feature. For that, it will require you to invest some of your time developing methods for collecting information not just using client-side scripts but also on the server-side.
For miscellaneous features that only serves to enhance user experience, it's mostly not worth it to develop fallback methods.
There's no reason to totally not use AJAX. AJAX helps minimize your traffic after all.
You can if you wish always use AJAX and update the history state using Push State or for more compatibility use the hash with none HTML5 compliant browsers.
with this you can have your server load a page then javascript read the document.hash and resume the state of the application base on the state of the hash.
for example i got to /index.html i click into something for example a client to open the view client you can change the hash to #/view/client/{client_id}/ then if a reload or go back using the browser the hash with change and you can use the onhashchanged event to capture it and match the sites state to the new hash then same if a favorite a certain state
A couple of other scenarios where one may be better off NOT using AJAX:
Letting someone to log into the web application. Use traditional form submit instead.
Searching and returning more than a few 100 rows from the database. Either break the process down or let the server side language handle it.